On Apr 10, 2005 10:17 PM, Sylvain Wallez <sylvain@apache.org> wrote:
> Gianugo Rabellino wrote:
>
> >However, if it's agreed once and for all that
> >dynamic sitemaps are to be considered harmful, so be it and let's
> >enforce it: it slipped through already, and now it doesn't work
> >anymore because of a bug. A check failing with an error message would
> >be enough to prevent stupid people like me to try it again in the
> >future (even though there will always be the http route...).
> >
> >
>
> Well, as long as there is the http route, blocking "cocoon:" will just
> lead people to use an uglier workaround which you just engraved in the
> archives for posterity ;-)
Hey, I wasn't the first one to suggest that ;-)
>
> So if we're to enforce something, it should be that a sitemap is a file,
> or a classpath resource (yes, I have this usecase).
Yep. Tricky, though: I sure can imagine sitemaps stored anywhere (why
not a JSR170 repo? or a webdav server? as long as it's static
stuff...), and blocking this possibility just to avoid (ab)use of
possibly dynamic protocols such as cocoon or http could be a bit too
much. I'd rather go for a big fat warning then...
Ciao,
--
Gianugo Rabellino
Pro-netics s.r.l. - http://www.pro-netics.com
Orixo, the XML business alliance: http://www.orixo.com
(blogging at http://www.rabellino.it/blog/)